Kaur

MEMORANDUM **

Gursharan Kaur, a citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility finding and denial of Kaur’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny the petition. Because the parties are familiar with the' facts, we recite them only as necessary.

The IJ did not err by relying on the asylum officer’s notes and testimony because they constituted admissible substantial evidence of what Kaur had said. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir.2004); cf. Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2005).

Further, there is substantial evidence to support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Although the IJ relied on eight discrepancies to find Kaur not credible, the IJ’s finding will be upheld “[s]o long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [petitioner’s] claim of persecution.” Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir.2003) (emphasis added). Here, three of the grounds on which the IJ relied are…

dissenting.

The immigration judge (“IJ”) found that Gursharan Kaur testified credibly and consistently at multiple evidentiary hearings. The IJ also found that Kaur’s testimony was consistent with her detailed asylum application and other written declarations. But the IJ ultimately found that Kaur was not credible — and the majority agrees— because her testimony differs from what asylum officer Alisa Kaufman said Kaur told her in an interview three years prior to the asylum hearing. However, the problem is that Kaufman had no recollection of her interview with Kaur. What Kaufman had were her hand-written notes taken at the interview, and she testified before the IJ based on what she thought these three-year-old notes meant.

In Singh (Jarnail) v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2005), we noted that “[c]er-tain features of an asylum interview make it a potentially unreliable point of comparison to a petitioner’s testimony for purposes of a credibility determination.” Id. at 1087 . These features include the lack of formality in the interview and the lack of incentive on the part of the asylum officer to keep accurate records. Id. Although our case law does not require an IJ to…